If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

We have a lot of fossils that formed that cannot be the result of a flood. Just sticking with those that include dinosaurs for the sake of brevity and simplicity we can start with those that are the result of a collapsing sand dune.

Wait a second, but isn't sand among the deposits which a Flood can be counted on as getting along?

Wait a second, but isn't sand among the deposits which a Flood can be counted on as getting along?

Look up the word aeolian.

Originally Posted by hansgeorg

I thought actually that when limestone layers are "thousands of feet thick", that is not limestone layers only, but sandstone in between, as I was looking at diagrams over North Dakota.

In some cases but look at the White Cliffs of Dover which rise over 300' above sea level IIRC their total thickness is something like 1300.' Note that chalk is a form of limestone. A very pure form. Now the White Cliffs are a tiny part of a chalk formation that stretches to the west across the British Isles to Northern Ireland. And in the east, across the English Channel goes from the coast of France across southern Scandinavia, Poland and into southern Russia (where it gets as thick as 1000 meters or 3280'), where it is eventually stops at the Ural Mountains.

Since Noah's Flood is supposed to have killed everything that was alive at the time and this chalk formation is supposed to have been laid down during the flood (it is a Cretaceous layer), this means there had to be enough coccoliths (the microscopic animal from whose shells the chalk is made of) alive at the time of the flood to have covered the entire planet to a depth of approximately 83 cm (a bit more than 32½" or 2'8½"). That's nearly 2¾' of just coccoliths covering every square inch of the planet. Now if it took approximately 10 million years to form as geologists estimate this poses no problem but it sure does if you contend it formed in less than a year.

And to be clear this is far from the only massive chalk formation in the world. There is also the Austin Chalk which underlies Dallas, Texas and averages 160 km (99½ miles) wide is roughly 120 meters (393') thick, and stretches from Mexico (where it is known as the San Felipe Formation) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into Louisiana -- a distance in excess of 800 km (497 miles). It contains enough coccoliths to cover the entire earth another 3 cm (1.1").

And when you add all the other massive chalk formations found throughout the world, if deposited at one time during a single flood, as YEC global flood advocates claim, it would require enough coccoliths to have covered the earth to a depth in excess of one meter (over 39"). When they were alive, what could they all have possibly eaten?

In fact that last question is rhetorical since it is impossible for that many of the necessary organisms to have existed. They would be packed so tightly and deeply that only only the top millimeter or so would receive any sunlight which is a problem since coccoliths require sunlight to exist. This means that only a tiny fraction of them could have ever lived under such circumstances.

Another problem with the idea of chalk layers being formed by a single flood is that flood geology doesn’t allow for the calm waters required for chalk deposits to form. The same rapid currents that are supposedly carving canyons all across the planet would disperse any collection of calcium carbonate, scattering their remains worldwide. Instead of the specific locations it is found in you would get NO chalk beds anywhere on the planet. Stokes Law demonstrates that a particle 150 microns across or less (chalk is made up of tiny coccolith shells that vary in size from 1 to 12 microns) would only sink to the bottom when water velocity is less than 0.053 kph or 0.033 mph, therefore the particles would never fall out of the ocean currents and dissolve as they were carried along.

Moreover, it takes a long time for these microscopic particles to settle even in calm waters. According to Stokes Law a 4 micron object (the size of the average coccolith) falls through the water at a speed of 0.00087cm/second. Now, along the southern Louisiana coastline there are around 22,860 meters (75,000’) of sedimentary deposits with a chalk layer buried approximately 6096 meters (20,000') down.

If a year long global flood was responsible for this, then how can it be explained that a pure layer of chalk, with each piece of it taking 125 days to settle, formed in the middle of other sediments, which were pouring down at a rate of nearly 205’/day (to account for 75,000’ in 1 year)? IOW, if chalk were deposited in a flood it would not be +90% pure coccolith as it is, but instead there would be a mixture of sand and shale in it.

I'm always still in trouble again

"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

I know it means wind(-borne). That means scientists guess the sand came by wind.

Originally Posted by rogue06

In some cases but look at the White Cliffs of Dover which rise over 300' above sea level IIRC their total thickness is something like 1300.' Note that chalk is a form of limestone. A very pure form. Now the White Cliffs are a tiny part of a chalk formation that stretches to the west across the British Isles to Northern Ireland. And in the east, across the English Channel goes from the coast of France across southern Scandinavia, Poland and into southern Russia (where it gets as thick as 1000 meters or 3280'), where it is eventually stops at the Ural Mountains.

Has it been verified as extant in everyone of these places?

Or has it been verified as in some places absent "since the Cretaceous layer eroded after the time"?

Originally Posted by rogue06

Since Noah's Flood is supposed to have killed everything that was alive at the time and this chalk formation is supposed to have been laid down during the flood (it is a Cretaceous layer), this means there had to be enough coccoliths (the microscopic animal from whose shells the chalk is made of) alive at the time of the flood to have covered the entire planet to a depth of approximately 83 cm (a bit more than 32½" or 2'8½"). That's nearly 2¾' of just coccoliths covering every square inch of the planet. Now if it took approximately 10 million years to form as geologists estimate this poses no problem but it sure does if you contend it formed in less than a year.

The coccoliths would certainly have been formed, both those dying into chalk and those surviving (if any) to live in our day, during the 2242 years between Creation and Flood.

83 cm world wide sounds much, but if on one hand Earth was c. 1/2 land, 1/2 sea, this means 1 m 66 seawide. And even if seas were not so deep back then , coccoliths 1 m 66 in compressed thickness could easily have been accomodated in seas much deeper than that even if much less deep than after Flood.

Originally Posted by rogue06

And to be clear this is far from the only massive chalk formation in the world. There is also the Austin Chalk which underlies Dallas, Texas and averages 160 km (99½ miles) wide is roughly 120 meters (393') thick, and stretches from Mexico (where it is known as the San Felipe Formation) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into Louisiana -- a distance in excess of 800 km (497 miles). It contains enough coccoliths to cover the entire earth another 3 cm (1.1").

And when you add all the other massive chalk formations found throughout the world, if deposited at one time during a single flood, as YEC global flood advocates claim, it would require enough coccoliths to have covered the earth to a depth in excess of one meter (over 39"). When they were alive, what could they all have possibly eaten?

Plancton of algae?

Originally Posted by rogue06

In fact that last question is rhetorical since it is impossible for that many of the necessary organisms to have existed. They would be packed so tightly and deeply that only only the top millimeter or so would receive any sunlight which is a problem since coccoliths require sunlight to exist. This means that only a tiny fraction of them could have ever lived under such circumstances.

A marine depth of 1 m 69 when compressed can have been decompressed to sufficiently spare for all of it to get sunlight.

Originally Posted by rogue06

Another problem with the idea of chalk layers being formed by a single flood is that flood geology doesn’t allow for the calm waters required for chalk deposits to form. The same rapid currents that are supposedly carving canyons all across the planet would disperse any collection of calcium carbonate, scattering their remains worldwide. Instead of the specific locations it is found in you would get NO chalk beds anywhere on the planet. Stokes Law demonstrates that a particle 150 microns across or less (chalk is made up of tiny coccolith shells that vary in size from 1 to 12 microns) would only sink to the bottom when water velocity is less than 0.053 kph or 0.033 mph, therefore the particles would never fall out of the ocean currents and dissolve as they were carried along.

I am not talking, then, I suppose (check other Flood geologists who have studied geology professionally!) of coccoliths forming calcium carbonate, calcium carbonate dissolving in water and only after that finally settling.

I am, I suppose, talking of decompressed coccoliths being compressed and forming calcium carbonate in a compressed state which settles independently of Stokes law. On the same site as where it was formed.

Originally Posted by rogue06

Moreover, it takes a long time for these microscopic particles to settle even in calm waters. According to Stokes Law a 4 micron object (the size of the average coccolith) falls through the water at a speed of 0.00087cm/second. Now, along the southern Louisiana coastline there are around 22,860 meters (75,000’) of sedimentary deposits with a chalk layer buried approximately 6096 meters (20,000') down.

If a year long global flood was responsible for this, then how can it be explained that a pure layer of chalk, with each piece of it taking 125 days to settle, formed in the middle of other sediments, which were pouring down at a rate of nearly 205’/day (to account for 75,000’ in 1 year)? IOW, if chalk were deposited in a flood it would not be +90% pure coccolith as it is, but instead there would be a mixture of sand and shale in it.

The mixture problem has been accounted for by currents doing the deposition, with instantaneous sorting. Shale, sand, coccoliths, they all have specific shapes, sizes and "specific weight" and so sort spontaneously into diverse layers when depositing from a strong current of sediment saturated water.

As to the burial of the layer, that is part of the post-Flood restructuring of the world and part of how deep seas were taking care of the water from the Flood, so land could rise.